Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Moderator: James Robinson
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Post spoilers here.
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
FOCUSSED?
EDIT: I think I may have spelt this wrong.
EDIT: I think I may have spelt this wrong.
Last edited by Joseph Bolas on Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
FOCUSERS?
(not that I'd've risked it, of course)
(not that I'd've risked it, of course)
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Yes, it can be spelt with one S or two. How they found only the 7-letter spelling, I don't quite get.Joseph Bolas wrote:FOCUSSED?
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
They did the same a few days ago with MALATE and MALEATE .smjg wrote:Yes, it can be spelt with one S or two. How they found only the 7-letter spelling, I don't quite get.Joseph Bolas wrote:FOCUSSED?
- Richard Brittain
- Series Champ
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:11 pm
- Location: Belgium
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
I really liked David Sandbach and I am shocked and disgusted that this annoying woman fluked victory against him.
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
I am glad she beat him, as David knocked out Matthew so David got his comeuppance .Richard Brittain wrote:I really liked David Sandbach and I am shocked and disgusted that this annoying woman fluked victory against him.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:47 am
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
cheers, Joseph, lol, both people were nice, Julie was just really nervous so im glad she won, just a shame i didnt win yesterday as i played against them both and won quite comfortably???? (albeit thanks to 3 wins on the numbers), never mind
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
You did good to get 3 overall wins. You just have to hope that Julie or noone else gets 4 wins or your out of the seed list.Matt Coates wrote:cheers, Joseph, lol, both people were nice, Julie was just really nervous so im glad she won, just a shame i didnt win yesterday as i played against them both and won quite comfortably???? (albeit thanks to 3 wins on the numbers), never mind
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:47 am
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
i think if someone gets 4 wins, then me and tony are tied for 8th place, dunno how they split it, but i think there will be more than 1 person with 4+wins
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
I would assume that because Tony Durrant was the first to get 3 wins and 389 points that if someone was to get 4 wins, you would be knocked out of the seed list. I could be wrong though.Matt Coates wrote:i think if someone gets 4 wins, then me and tony are tied for 8th place, dunno how they split it, but i think there will be more than 1 person with 4+wins
I'm not entirely sure how long there is left in this series (probably a month?), but you never know what could happen. Alot of good contestants in this series have been ending their octochamp runs very early, so maybe noone thats left will be able to get 4 wins. Anything is possible .
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Not to be the harbinger of doom, Matthew, but I think you are right. I wouldn't be surprised if Richard Priest ended up around the number 8 spot.Matthew Coates wrote:i think if someone gets 4 wins, then me and tony are tied for 8th place, dunno how they split it, but i think there will be more than 1 person with 4+wins
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
David was just six out on the first numbers round, and had a 6 left over. I was surprised that Carol didn't point this out.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Stop nicking observations from my recapHoward Somerset wrote:David was just six out on the first numbers round, and had a 6 left over. I was surprised that Carol didn't point this out.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
My apologies. I hadn't read the recap. Only this spoilers thread.Corby wrote:Stop nicking observations from my recapHoward Somerset wrote:David was just six out on the first numbers round, and had a 6 left over. I was surprised that Carol didn't point this out.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Was Susie correct in offering TREASONS? TREASON is only listed as a mass noun.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
This has come up before, and yes she was. Somebody (possibly Corby) expressed their hypothetical outrage if they offered SENATORS and their opponent still got the points for TREASONS when they had taken the time to learn a less dodgy anagram!Howard Somerset wrote:Was Susie correct in offering TREASONS? TREASON is only listed as a mass noun.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
That doesn't answer the question of whether it's a legitimate word. Maybe she made the same mistake twice. On what basis would it be allowed?dinos_the_chemist wrote:This has come up before, and yes she was. Somebody (possibly Corby) expressed their hypothetical outrage if they offered SENATORS and their opponent still got the points for TREASONS when they had taken the time to learn a less dodgy anagram!Howard Somerset wrote:Was Susie correct in offering TREASONS? TREASON is only listed as a mass noun.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
Oh yeah forgot about that. But surely she isn't gonna go back on it now after accepting it twice, so for all intensive Countdown purposes, it IS valid.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday, 10th April
I've found two previous instances of TREASONS being offered, and in both cases it was Susie who gave it. One was in Series 54, and the other was only last month in one of Barry Smith's games. I have a vague recollection of Susie justifying it by saying that there is a high treason and a petty treason, thus two possible treasons. However, if I were to appear on the programme and find that TREASONS is possible, I hope that I'd remember to go with the safer SENATORS, as that would be the day that Susie disallows it.
The earlier one this series is discussed here.
BTW, you mention in that thread, Jim, that you have TREASONS in your dictionary. I understood that it is your dictionary that CountMax uses. CountMax doesn't come up with TREASONS, but does offer SENATORS and a couple of other anagrams - ASSENTOR and SANTEROS.
The earlier one this series is discussed here.
BTW, you mention in that thread, Jim, that you have TREASONS in your dictionary. I understood that it is your dictionary that CountMax uses. CountMax doesn't come up with TREASONS, but does offer SENATORS and a couple of other anagrams - ASSENTOR and SANTEROS.